OF S. BULGAKOV AND F. BENSING
Once again Mr. Bulgakov g a r b l e s a quotation in the
grossest manner in Note 2, on p. 273 of Vol. II. The third
column of his table does not apply to the “big farms”, as he
declares in the heading, but to all farms in general (Unter-
suchungen, etc.* S. 573, Anhang. III).
The last but one column of Mr. Bulgakov’s table shows
not the percentage of indebtedness of the “medium farms”
(as Mr. Bulgakov says) but the average size of the holding
(sic!) in small-scale farming. (L. c., Anhang, V, S. 575.)
The last column shows not the percentage of indebtedness
of the “small farms”, but the average size of holding in
large-scale farming (ibidem). It is incredible, but a fact
that Mr. Bulgakov has managed to confuse the tables of the
original he quotes and has “mixed up” the data on size of
holdings and the data on the percentage of indebtedness.
The actual figures:
843.10

643.20

485.06

35.13%
26.80%
21.09%
(average % of indebtedness)
K l e i n-
M i t t e l-
G r o s s b e-
b e t r i e b**
b e t r i e b***
t r i e b****
35.13
—
26.80
—
21.09
* Untersuchungen der wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse in 4 Gemeinden
des Königreichs Bayern (Study of Economic Conditions in 4 Communities of
the Bavarian Kingdom).—Ed.
** Small farms.—Ed.
*** Medium farms.—Ed.
**** Large farms.—Ed.


Once again: this is how Mr. Bulgakov quotes.
He refers to p. 77 of Bensing, where Bensing says that
agricultural machines* have a smaller part to play in
raising productivity than industrial machines.
But this is Bensing’s introduction to a chapter whose
r e s u l t, p. 99, gives a considerable increase in production
owing to agricultural machines.
Mr. Bulgakov quotes Bensing. I 32, 48, 44.
Bensing 4: Marx—Gegner der Maschinen in der Industrie**
Insert on Bensing in § on machines***:
1) Bensing’s bourgeois attitude to agricultural machines
(adopted by Bulgakov) is well illustrated by a similar
attitude to machines in industry.
(p. 4. Marx—Gegner der Maschinen (cf. 1-2)
p. 5. Marx “dreht” distorts the beneficial effect of machines.
p. 11. Marx “allerhand Unheil nachsagt”**** ... to agri-
cultural machines.
Bensing’s standpoint is that of the bourgeois and the
entrepreneur
female and child labour—nil (pp. 13-14)!!
2) Higher productivity of agricultural machines
α) special inquiry
β) a comparison of literary data p. 9 9 (results)
81,078 = 117.4%
reduction of costs, p. 1 6 7 (results).
69,040 = 110%
3) Bulgakov quotes Bensing p. 42, but says nothing
about this being Bensing’s illustration of the importance of
machines: p. 4 5.
Bensing on electricity: pp. 127 and 102.
N.B. also about Feldbahnen***** pp. 127-29.
Can Bensing’s calculations (pp. 145 et seq.) be used
to determine ™ and modify it?
Estate = 3 1 0 hectares (240 hectares of fields & 70 hec-
tares of meadow).
It is better to take the even not-too-exact figures of Ben-
sing himself, p. 171.
* The word “machines” has been inserted by the editors.—Ed.
** Opponent of machines in industry.—Ed.
*** See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 130-34.—Ed.
**** Predicts all sorts of misfortunes.—Ed.
***** Field supply railways.—Ed.
!


Fall I*.
v*=1&2=3 Lfd Nummer***
Mk
(pp. 147-48 table)
=2,400 = 2 persons
&9,700 = 17 persons
17,525 =13,294 work-
5,242 men
 ing days
8,052 women
m**=10 (Abgaben&
Lasten)&Reinertrag****=300
v=29,625
&
c**=38,690 ®
19 persons and

7  5
Mk m=

1 3,  9 4 working
days
W**=69,040
c=4&5&6&7&8&9&11&12&13 Lfd. Nr.
c here=annual wear and tear of c.
4,470
All c=57,000&14,000&150,000&(part of 35,500)
11,699
(namely 35,000—29,625)
1,464
6,660
2,800
1,000
6,035
1,900
2,662
38,690 Mk ®
Mk
Capital:
57,000
livestock
14,000
dead stock
150,000
buildings
35,500
working capital
256,500
Fall II.
Mk
Mk
Mk
1,776
v
29,625
1,776 =
1,184 working days
13,294
— 832.5
— 1,446
— 330 = — 220
”
”
— 964
943.5
28,179
1,446 =

12,330
Hence: 19 persons &
1 , 3 3 0 working days
* Case One.—Ed.
** c—constant capital (the cost of the means of production); v—vari-
able capital (the cost of labour-power); m—surplus-value; W—value of the
gross product.—Ed.
*** Serial number.—Ed.
**** (Taxes&duties)&net income.—Ed.
!
!
!
!
PNMNQ
PNMNQ
PNMNQ
PNMNQ


m

taxes
c 38,690
c = 9,192.5
1,368.5 Reinertrag
& 502.5 (new machinery)
v = 28,179
 (4.,010)
m= 1,668.5
1,668.5
39,192.5
W=69,040.0
Capital
57, 000
&14,000
16,010
2,010
16,010
150,000
35,500?*)
258,510
Fall III A.
v
28,179
546 Mk = 439 working days
12,330
—
—

454 Mk = 304
”
”

v =28,087
92 Mk
135 working days)
12,195
Hence: 1 9 persons &
1 , 1 9 5 working days
c = 39,192.5
m=
300 taxes
Mk
&
362.5 (4 8 1,450)
4,878 Reinertrag
c=39,555
v=28,087
39,555
5,178
m= 5,178
W=72,820
Capital
57,000
Mk
16,010
17,460
& 1,450
17,460
150,000
35,500
*) ? The author assumed the circulating capital = 2 live-
stock&dead stock 57&14=71 thousand. 71 ÷ 2—35.5;
consequently, here too he should have taken 57&16.01 =
73.01. 73.01 ÷ 2 = 36,505 Mk.
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q


Fall III B.
v 28,087
1,523 Mk= 1,269 working days
c
39,555
— 1,482.5
40.5
=

”
”
&

{4 8 600}
 26,604.5
1,482.5
1,242 working days
c= 39,705
v=26,604.5
m= 6,510.5 {300&6,210.5}
12,195
1,242
Hence: 1 9 persons and
W= 72,820
1 0, 9 5 3 working days
10,953
Capital. Dead stock
17,460
&

18,000
Fall III C.
v 26,604.5
486 Mk= 360 working days
c=
39,705
— 418.5
67.5
=

”
”
&
400 {4 8 1,200&100}
 26,186.0
418.5
= 315
”
”
c=
40,105
v=
26,186
m=
6,529 {300&6,229}
10,953
— 315
Hence: 1 9 persons &
W=
72,820
1 0, 6 3 8 working days
10,638
Capital. Dead stock
18,060
& 1,200
19,260
Fall III D.
v 26,186
2,616 Mk = 2,024 working days
c= 40,105
— 2,320.5
295.5 Mk=

”
”
&

(4 8 1,600)
 23,865.5
2,320.5
1,827
c= 40,505
v= 23,865.5
m=
8,449.5 (300&8,149.5)
10,638
— 1,827
Hence: 1 9 persons &
W= 72,820
8, 8 1 1 working days
8,811
Capital. Dead stock
19,260
& 1,600
20,860
P
MQ
PM
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
MQ
PM
Q
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
PM
Q
PM
Q


Fall III E.
v=23,865.5
2,616 Mk= 1,400 working days
c= 40,105
— 1,470
— 630 Mk=

”
”
& 400
(735&126)
v=22,395.5 —1,470 Mk=
980 working days
41,366
& 215.5
& 215 Mk*)=140
”
”
— 215*)
 22,610.5
c=
41,151
8,811
v= 22,610.5
— 980
m= 14,476.5 (300&14,176.5)
7,831
W= 78,238
& 140
Capital.
Dead stock
7, 9 7 1
Hence: 1 9 persons & 7, 9 7 1 days
20,860
(Machine hired)
(Steam thresher)
Fall III F.
v= 22,610.5 1,890 Mk= 1,575 working days
c= 41,151
— 1,035


”
”
& 250
(4 8 1,000)
 21,575.5 1,035 Mk=
885 working days
c= 41,401
v= 21,575.5
7,971
m= 14,781.5 (300&14,481.5)
— 885
Hence: 1 9 persons &
W= 77,758.5
7, 0 8 6 working days
7,086
dead stock
20,860
& 1,000
21,860
*) These 215 Mk (= about 4 of 861) I tentatively
charge to v from the cost of the h i r e d machine (thresh-
er). [The same thing in Fall IV with the steam plough.]
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
P
N
M
N
Q
P
N
M
N
Q
PNMNQ
PNMNQ


Fall IV.
c=38,786
dead stock
21,860
v=23,465.5
&10,000
Feldbahn
m=18,826.5
31,860
W= 81,078.0
(steam plough h i r e d)
Hence= 17 persons and 9, 0 9 6 working days
(introduction of the steam plough (one only) and the Feldbahn)
changes the quantity of the livestock and the permanent labourers.
19 persons
2 (Ochsenmeister
und Pferdeknecht)*
—1,250 Mk
Day labourers
—7 0 0 days (at 1.50 = 1,050 Mk)
17 persons
Hence, minus , 3 0 0 Mk
Reduction of the livestock:
— 7 horses
4,200
—18 oxen
8,100
—1 , 3 0 0 Mk
Maintenance of dead stock:
before = 24,866 Mk
now
= 20,981 Mk
— 3,885 Mk
i.e., a reduction of v by 2,300 Mk
(2 permanent labourers&700 days)
12,300
” ”
”
” c ” 16,185
& 3,885
Meanwhile, c increases by 1, 0 0 0 (0 8 10,000 Feldbahn)&w
(on my assumption) of the cost of hiring the Dampfflug, i.e.,
w816,760= 4,19083= 1 , 5 7 0, i.e., by 13,570
S u m t o t a l r e d u c t i o n o f c is 16,185—13,570=ù, 6 1 ú
v is reduced by 2,300 Mk, but is, on the other hand, increased by
4816,760=4, 19 0, at 1.5 Mk=c. 2,800 working days
* Labourer tending oxen and labourer tending horses.—Ed.
!
!


Hence v has increased by 1, 8 9 0 Mk {—2 permanent labourers
&2,100 working days. }
c = 41,401
v = 21,575.5
m =

2,615
& 1,890
18,526.5
c = 38,786
23,465.5
18,826.5
v =23,465.5
m = 18,826.5
W = 81,078.0
Written in June-September 1901
First published in 1932
Printed from the original
in Lenin Miscellany XIX

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF F. HERTZ’S BOOK,
THE AGRARIAN QUESTIONS IN
RELATION TO SOCIALISM*
Hertz
VI. Typical approach (lack of historical view, tendency
to ramble and delve into detail)
Russian translation 17.
1. K. Kautsky has “no doubt” impeccably cleared up
two questions: on rural labourers
on large-scale agriculture
Alias—the “peasant question”.
2. According to Hertz, K. Kautsky has two impor-
tant points:
1) in agriculture the interests of wage labourers
N.B.
are superior to the interests of the owners.
2) the peasant is an antagonist of the labourer.
3. In Austria.
82 million active in agriculture.
44 million rural labourers.
Hertz believes that 0.8 million rural labourers
are de facto co-heirs.
4. “Wortspiel”** by Kautsky: the peasant-entre-
preneur (cf. Chernov).
5. The peasant’s alternate transformation (in K.
Kautsky) into a labourer and an entrepreneur.
* Hertz, F., Die agrarischen Fragen im Verhältnis zum Sozialismus.
Wien 1899.—Ed.
** Word juggling.—Ed.
!


6. Note 15. Hertz also regards holders with 1-2
!
{labourers as Kleinbetrieb or peasant farm.
6. There is no class antagonism between the labour-
ers and the small peasants.
7. Demands must be “immediately attainable”—
communal ownership of land (K. Kautsky) does
not meet the requirement.
9. Not every peasant with subsidiary employment
is already a proletarian [v e r y s t u p i d].
“Help” is not exploitation.
10. “Definition” of capitalism [forgot all about commod-
ity production and wage labour!!]
10. Real definition of capitalism: production under
the domination of capital (!! that’s all!!).
“Genetic” definition
10. Note 25. “The economic usefulness of the capitalist
is still being debated.” (Sic!)
11. “Extremely false”—“die” Agrarfrage (!)
11. Britain: now “a model for everyone”, now “we are
not Britain” (con—Bernstein).
12. “Normal” capitalism. (?!)
The most important thing: the fact that capitalist
exploitation is not connected with progress to-
wards capitalist large-scale production.
12. Agriculture in Russia. Nikolai—on.
12-13. Large landed estates have not made for progress
in Russian agriculture?
13. New peasantry (according to P.S.64)
14. Also—gilt Nicolai—on (??)* “Nowhere does the
new mode of production supplant the old.”
14. In Russia, capital does not go on to a juridical
possession of the means of production, being
satisfied with §§ share of the products.
Sic!
Socialism will possibly take a similar stand in
respect of capitalism?
15. Latifundia in Austria are not as common as
K. Kautsky believes (although there are model
farms) (and nothing more).
15. Baudrillart’s excellent works.
* Consequently, Nikolai—on remains in force (??).—Ed.
((


16. The Middle Ages bequeathed a great many pecu-
liarities. K. Kautsky is totally unhistorical in
his summing-up conclusions [Where? What? When?]
17. Austrian Alps: in 1867 (idem 1 8 8 7 ) the same
economy as in the Middle Ages.
18. Colossal growth of debt.
20. Hertz agrees with Engels that the peasant must be
rescued from “the vegetative life” of the patriar-
chal natural economy, but is the money economy
the best way? (Sic!)
20-21. Peasants ruined in the Alps, the rich buying up
peasant lands (for hunting). That is not a case
of large-scale production displacing the small.
21. The transforming effect of capitalism in the Alps
is a complete fiasco!
21. Hence K. Kautsky is wrong on the educative role
(!!)
of capitalism: parcel leaseholds are designed to
supplant large-scale production altogether.
21. Accordingly, the “main task of socialism” is to
sustain the co-operatives!!!
22. Concentration of mortgages. Mortgages are not
always
1) large farms owe > than small ones.
24. Small depositors in mortgage banks. Cf. figures.
Enormous % of holders
and small % of capital.
26. Savings banks in Austria. 1’d*
28. Russian saving banks, 65.5% workers, etc.
28. This tendency is not one of centralisation but of
decentralisation (!).
29. Small artisans and workers are expropriating the
landowners. Bernstein is quite right about agri-
culture: a growing number of holders (!!!).
31. Engels’s mistake about America (displacement
of small farmers by big ones).
33-34. In the Eastern United States of America, land
prices have dropped, but the progress of agricul-
tural production continues, and K. Kautsky is
quite wrong. [Cf. Bulgakov II, 435-436].
* Not deciphered.—Ed.
!
!


36. & America: absence of parcels allows the > use
of machines.
36. The Americans take pride in the fact that they
do not have such a l o w - s t a n d i n g p e a s-
a n t r y a s E u r o p e d o e s.
39. The modern Grossbetriebe should also be com-
pared with the modern Kleinbetriebe
Chernov .
40. There is a terrible waste of labour-power under
the parcel economy in Europe: neither the large
nor the small farms have any “absolute” supe-
riority.
43. The fatalism of European peasants. An American
would take a limitation of credit worthiness as
an affront.
44. “dire misery” of the European peasant.
45. Characteristic headline: “S o c i a l i s t Attacks
on Small-Scale Production.”
47-48. Countries according to crop yields: Britain, Bel-
gium, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, France.
4 countries with small-scale cropping surpass France!
in % of farms!!
49. In large-scale production, the wheat crop is
o n l y 0.49 hectolitre higher. [Yes, at a rough
estimate!]
50. Growth in crop yields in France in the 19th cen-
tury.
51. Decline in crop yields in Britain.
52. The growth in the number of agricultural ma-
chines in France is evidence (51) that the Kleinbetrieb
does not shun science.
52. Growth in the number of holders (???)
53. Rural handicraft industry—none in France (we
see nothing)?? [Souchon] (Maurice, p. 294).
53. Distortion. Parcel farms decline in area (on the
question of the growth of wage labour!!)
54. Hypocritical over “normal” development.
55. Kautsky’s assertion (about wage labour among


small peasants) “total zerfällt”*—data 1862 1882
1892 (Bulgakov) on the decline in the number of
day labourers with land.
55. An exclamation mark over the fact that G r o s s-
b e t r i e b is already > 40 hectares!
56. K. Kautsky’s quotation about the French peas-
antry has been taken from a reactionary, roman-
tically-minded lady. Foville has refuted....
56-58. B a u d r i l l a r t ....
59. The consumption of meat in the countryside is
much < than in the towns (although it is growing
faster!)
59. K. Kautsky’s assumption (on the consumption of
meat).
59. Pauperisierung der französischen Bauern k e i-
n e s w e g s s t a t t f i n d e t (!!)**
60. The state of France is the “g o a l” of all other
countries (!)
60. Is there an absolut überlegener Betrieb?***
61. K. Kautsky should have said: Grossbetrieb may
be superior to Kleinbetrieb.
— K. Kautsky does not give any figures for crop
yields on Grossbetrieb and Kleinbetrieb.
61. “Feuilleton method” ... (of Kautsky’s).
62. Examines the arguments for Grossbetrieb
Buildings
Machines (co-operatives)
Credit (something he does not examine).
62-63. David in Sozialistische Monatshefte.
63. Steam plough: not possible everywhere
— excellent results on heavy soils
— but not—on light soils.
64. Describes in detail where the steam plough cannot
be used.
65. It is absurd to say, he adds, that the steam plough
is better under any conditions (? who? where?).
65. Threshing in winter: labour (!) cheap (N.B.).
65. Once again (bis) a b s o l u t (!!) (swindler!)
* Does not hold water.—Ed.
** There is no pauperisation of the peasants in France at all.—Ed.
*** A farm with absolute superiority.—Ed.


65-69. Incomes.
66. —East-Elbe—and South (I!) Germany: and so on
(comic)
67. Higher yields following the introduction of the
steam plough.
68. —and in South Germany (Baden) even higher!!!
68-69. M. Hecht*)—first-rate.
70-71. Auhagen. (Cf. K. Kautsky.)
72. Marx. Contrasts cash income with agriculture (!!!)
K. Kautsky does not even touch upon the question.
72-73. Nachklang naturrechtlichen etc.* (communal land-
ownership).
73-74. Chewing on an inexpressible commonplace
 ** with praise for Wagner (!)—
74. Accordingly, 
rough 
method—simply 
compares
gross incomes.
74. Kleinbetrieb uses relatively > labour than Gross-
betrieb.
76. The bulk of the peasantry still using the most
primitive implements.
76. Abolition of the antithesis between t o w n a n d
c o u n t r y 
(Hauptwunsch 
alter 
Utopisten***
and Communist Manifesto), but “we do not be-
l i e v e ”....
76-77. The Condition of the Peasants (Kutzleb??) [see
separate sheet. Cf. B u l g a k o v II 282] in
part the same references!!
79. “First-rate”—Moritz Hecht....
80. Stumpfe on peasant livestock farming.
81. Small holders widely (?) use agricultural ma-
chines (?)
82. Grossbetrieb in Europe not > than 3 of the area.
[“Cannot treble production”]
*) Remember to note à propos M. Hecht intensified (and
age-old) use of urban waste, sewage, etc., as fertiliser.
* Echo of natural right, etc.—Ed.
** A formula used by Hertz to denote productivity, where w—value
of gross product, k—costs of production, and t—time of production.—Ed.
*** The main dream of the old utopians.—Ed.
K
K


83. The Grossbetrieb has had the worst of the crisis.
84-85. Engels is wrong in expecting overseas competition
to intensify.
87. Kautsky’s “trick” (data on artificial wine).
87-88. Kautsky’s groundless hopes for the industrialisa-
tion of agriculture: the displacement is insignifi-
cant. The merger of agriculture with industries
often goes through the co-operatives.
88. “IF” Grossbetrieb has “really” combined
large-scale industry and large-scale agricultural
production. (“If”!?!)
88. 1) No concentration.
2) Growing number of independent holders.
3)
”
”
of all holders.
4) Superiority of large-scale over small-scale pro-
duction is relative.
89. 5) Two trends in development:
towards a growth of medium production.
towards parcel farms.
6) P a r c e l l e a s e h o l d s—the ultimate goal
of capitalist agriculture.
7) Capitalism fails to create any economic or
psychological premises for socialist large-scale
production.
8) “The main task of socialism” is to organise
!!
small-scale production through co-operatives.
89. The small peasant as well as the small tenant is
not a capitalist, but a worker.
89-90. Labour rent of the small peasant drops to subsist-
ence minimum—(!!N.B.)
90. The price of land—the main cause.
91. The small holder buys land and pays his debts
through 
s u b s i d i a r y 
e m p l o y m e n t
((work for a wage...!))...
92.
The contemporary peasant question is a transmut-
N.B.
ed form of the unemployment problem. (Hertz
fails to make both ends meet).
92. For Kautsky the agrarian question is everywhere
the same.
93. What will a socialist state do with its employees in
agriculture? (Very clever!)
KK


95. In agriculture, the lever of economic self-interest
(Selbstinteresse) is indispensable. [Russian trans-
lation p. 7.]
! ! !
socialist!
103. Terrible nonsense on the content of the modern
right of ownership, etc.
104. —division on the basis of property [pure scholas-
ticism!]
105. —and all of this just to say that it’s no use
waiting for a social revolution. We are in it.
Property will not be transformed “all at once”.
111. The peasants are “entering socialism”: the co-
operatives....
112. Every year, about 1, 5 0 0 agricultural co-opera-
tives arise.
—1, 0 5 0, 0 0 0 farmers have united in a purchas-
ing society (“con” K. Kautsky!!).
Kautsky is absolutely wrong....
In Austria (Hohenbruck) dairy farm co-operatives
have less than 1 cow per farmer. [Cf. Germany!!]
11. The co-operatives mostly benefit the small and
Sic!
the smallest holders.
113. Kautsky’s objection “A b s o l u t u n h a l t b a r ”.—Ko-
misch* (?) on sale of milk. The peasants receive
cash.
113. How 
“weak” 
the 
exploitation 
of 
the 
rural
labourers by the co-operatives is! Hundreds
of peasants have 2 or 3 labourers (!?). Associations
graded:
118. ...Disqualifizierung minderwertiger Produkte.**
...regulations by dairy co-operatives on the main-
tenance of cattle, etc.
119. The co-operatives have started to build elevators
with strict sorting of grain.
10. Wine-makers’ co-operatiues: fully Grossbetrieb....
121. The poor are saved from ruin: their vineyards are
!!
bought from them and leased back on
* Absolutely groundless.—Absurd.—Ed.
** Rejection of low-grade products.—Ed.
